• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Is Fox News bad for Republicans?

O

Oscar Madison

A former Reagan aide says Fox News is bad for Republicans. Is it?

Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan staffer, thinks Fox News is bad for the GOP.

In a paper titled "How Fox News Changed American Media and Political Dynamics," Bartlett writes about the rise of Fox and how it has changed the way conservatives consume and think about news and politics. He ended the paper by citing a political scientist who said Fox made it hard for the party to move to the center or increase its appeal. ... READ MORE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...bad-for-republicans-is-it/?wprss=rss_homepage
Click to expand...

Roger Ailes' stated purpose is "stirring up the crazies." Bartlett says one stirred (and shaken) Republicans end up with unelectable candidates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With Don Lemon & Anderson Cooper, maybe their target audience is the gay community.

P.S.

"Is Fox News Is Bad For Republicans"???? Well, it seems to be bad for sentence structure... :-D
 
Among its core audience (older, conservative Americans), Fox News (IMO) does its job well, and probably gets a lot of viewers all fired up, and out to vote for conservative candidates - so I'd say it helps Republicans, in that context. But if you believe the demographic data about the changing electorate (becoming more diverse and more liberal), and the demographic data about Fox News (skews old), then it isn't having much influence on younger voters, one way or the other.
 
Hmm, That demographic data is quite obscure, - kind of like, "Some say", or "It has been said". That said, Rupert Murdoch is great for Democrats, but you need to know what or who you are looking for at Democrat events. Nuf said.
 
LKellerIII said:
Among its core audience (older, conservative Americans), Fox News (IMO) does its job well, and probably gets a lot of viewers all fired up, and out to vote for conservative candidates - so I'd say it helps Republicans, in that context. But if you believe the demographic data about the changing electorate (becoming more diverse and more liberal), and the demographic data about Fox News (skews old), then it isn't having much influence on younger voters, one way or the other.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. Those Fox viewers get fired up and vote in Republican primaries for far right, tea party candidates who lose in the general election.
 
LKellerIII said:
Does FoxNews get credit (blame?) for George W. Bush?
Click to expand...

He also had a famous and well connected father...we see how that works in politics.

The point is that if we're electing people to office because it makes for great TV, or vice versa, then we deserve to fail as a country. I really worry about this reality-TV approach we take to the world, assuming that what we see on TV would make for great leadership. The truth is it just makes for (hopefully) great TV. That's it. If Roger Ailes is thinking beyond that, he's not doing his job.
 
Oscar Madison said:
That's the problem. Those Fox viewers get fired up and vote in Republican primaries for far right, tea party candidates who lose in the general election.
Click to expand...

And then those Americans went out, more than once and elected more Republicans to every level of government than at any time in more than 150 years. Ronald Reagan ran against the the snake pit known as the news media in 1980; AND he campaigned while all of the status quo Republicans bashed him and beat him up as one of those radical conservative types. He won two landslides. In 1980 There was no Fox News. In 1980 there was no Rush Limbaugh.

I am sure the Republican party appreciates the concern of so many Democrats for their well being and assistance and support for GOP victories. Especially all of the Democrats who try to jump on and ride Republican coattails. It's a beautiful thingy.

Matter of fact I am a Constitutionalist. Thanks for asking.
 
Last edited:
LKellerIII said:
Among its core audience (older, conservative Americans), Fox News (IMO) does its job well, and probably gets a lot of viewers all fired up, and out to vote for conservative candidates - so I'd say it helps Republicans, in that context. But if you believe the demographic data about the changing electorate (becoming more diverse and more liberal), and the demographic data about Fox News (skews old), then it isn't having much influence on younger voters, one way or the other.
Click to expand...

the older viewers of Fox News were raised on TV news, younger viewers (or voters) weren't, you'd have a bunch of old conservative geezers claiming a liberal conspiracy if their cable company dropped Fox news over subscriber fees (the free market), that's what happened with Dishnet, younger viewers (if they even subscribe to pay TV) wouldn't notice, the viewers of CNN, MSNBC, and network news shows aren't much younger
 
It wasn't their place to campaign one way or the other. But thanks for the acknowledgement that they do so routinely - all one side.

"The function of the press is very high. To deliberately misstate or suppress the news is a breach of the public trust.". Louis Brandeis
 
Last edited:
Silkie said:
But thanks for the acknowledgement that they do so routinely - all one side
Click to expand...

I don't know I "acknowledged" anything. I was merely responding to your statement that Reagan ran against the press. I don't believe that's true. He was really great with the press. And he had some extremely skilled and capable media people working for him who knew the very artful talent of manipulation. In a way, they invented it. Some of them ended up working in the media. Including the aforementioned Roger Ailes. Like many of them, he was an advertising man whose product was Reagan. It still is.
 
Last edited:
TheBigA said:
I don't know I "acknowledged" anything. I was merely responding to your statement that Reagan ran against the press. I don't believe that's true. He was really great with the press. And he had some extremely skilled and capable media people working for him who knew the very artful talent of manipulation. In a way, they invented it. Some of them ended up working in the media. Including the aforementioned Roger Ailes. Like many of them, he was an advertising man whose product was Reagan. It still is.
Click to expand...

Actually, he was a TV producer ("The Mike Douglas Show") and then a political consultant. He did not work in advertising.

Ronnie knew how to handle people, reporters included. He also took shots at them in speeches. Mostly, he got away with it.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom